High Court
Gujarat HC adjourns TRAI DAS order till 13 December
MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the central government and the Gujarat state government has time until 13 December to submit their responses to the Gujarat High Court. The three parties were dragged to court by the Gujarat Cable Operators Association (GCOA) on issues associated to the digitisation process.
 |
| The Court adjourned the case since the lawyers representing the MSOs did not turn up for the hearing, says Pramod Pandya |
The court hearing which took place on 6 December was adjourned till 13 December as the lawyers representing the multi-system operators (MSOs) were not present at the court hearing. “It was TRAI that made MSOs a party in the case. The Court adjourned the case since the lawyers representing the MSOs did not turn up for the hearing,” said Gujarat Cable Operators Association president Pramod Pandya.
Earlier, GCOA had filed a petition to the HC, challenging the legality of Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations. After this, in its hearing on 13 November, the Court had asked the TRAI and government to declare the reasons for formulating the existing laws pertaining to tariff and interconnection.
Pandya had earlier told Indiantelevision.com that the TRAI aims to remove the local cable operators. “We have challenged all the notifications passed by TRAI. This includes revenue share, consumer application forms (CAFs) and billing,” he said.
The parties were given 15 days to submit their responses; however, it’s almost a month now since the first Court hearing took place. “We are hopeful that the HC will come out with its judgment on 13 December hearing,” he concluded.
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
